Juvenile Diversion and Indigenous offenders A study examining juvenile offenders in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales

This study was motivated by a concern that Indigenous juvenile offenders were not receiving the benefits of diversionary schemes. Previous research had suggested that Indigenous offenders are diverted at a significantly lower rate than non-Indigenous offenders. This research, however, had not compared rates of diversion after adjusting for offender characteristics and other factors that can be taken into account when making the decision to divert. The aim of the present study was to assess how much of the difference in rates of diversion between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders remained after these factors had been taken into account. In pursuit of this aim, a series of logistic regression models were developed to see whether the likelihood of diversion was influenced by an individual's Indigenous status, after controlling for a range of offence and offender characteristics. Diversion was modelled as both a dichotomous variable (diversion/non-diversion) and as an ordered variable (in order: Caution, Conference, Court). The data to construct the models was obtained from Western Australia (WA), South Australia (SA) and New South Wales (NSW). Diversion was defined as either a police or court referred conference or a formal police caution. Non-diversion was defined as a court appearance. The results were as follows: • In all three states, Indigenous offenders were diverted at a lower rate than non-Indigenous offenders; • When controls were included for age, sex, current offence characteristics and prior history, this discrepancy in rates of diversion reduced, but remained significant and relatively strong; • Indigenous offenders were found to be more likely to have had previous contact with the justice system and a larger number of prior contacts. In addition, in WA and NSW, Indigenous offenders were more likely to have previously been sentenced to custody. This is important because prior contacts and prior custodial sentence (in WA and NSW) exerted strong negative effects on the probability of diversion. Although Indigenous offenders were found to be less likely to be diverted than non-Indigenous offenders, even after controlling for a range of relevant legal factors, the interpretation of this finding is unclear. It may reflect racial bias in the exercise of police and/or court discretion. It is important to note, however, that legislation covering diversion in all three states gives police and courts a very wide discretion in what factors they can take into account. This study was not able to measure and hence control for all these factors. It …